Kew wrote:Quote: "Architecture is where Kew really shines, and this map is no exception. The grand halls in The Ghost of Alin’Gar are enough to make this map worth playing through. It really looks like an abandoned castle, rivaling any Unreal equivalent with ease......"

6 for architecture?

If you compare that with Kew's map, which gets a 6 for architecture.. then what determines the score?

I think the 6 for Kew's map is probably more realistic (when compared to packs that get really good scores like 7Bullets and Zephon which have some outstanding architecture) than the 8 for that Greek Island map, which honestly should be a 4 or lower.

Yeah, I didn't really approve of the scores, but I can hardly just override a reviewer's opinion and change the scores by myself. Delacroix will have to respond to the feedback in this thread by himself so that I can update the entry.

Keep in mind that the reviews represent solely the opinions of the reviewers, and not some form of UnrealSP.Org Hivemind opinion. USP is merely a platform for the community to express itself. (and the changes I have planned for the site will emphasize this)

I remember I wanted to put a much higher score on my Xeranias fall review, but scragybabes knocked me back and asked me to lower it in order to keep in line with the other maps reviewed on the site before he posted it up. I agreed and reckon it's a great idea. Your call though of course

Kew wrote:Quote: "Architecture is where Kew really shines, and this map is no exception. The grand halls in The Ghost of Alin’Gar are enough to make this map worth playing through. It really looks like an abandoned castle, rivaling any Unreal equivalent with ease......"

6 for architecture?

Unreal-esque architecture doesn't warrant a very high score because packs like Xidia, 7 Bullets, ONP, and Tower of Shrakith'a are more impressive in that regard.

Hmm............ I never thought of my maps as being Unreal-esque. On the contrary, I have always endeavored to make them realistic in an historic and medieval setting, which appears to be popular when you consider just how many commercial games are or have been set in that genre. Unreal, the game, is not one of them.

sana wrote:Yeah, I didn't really approve of the scores, but I can hardly just override a reviewer's opinion and change the scores by myself. Delacroix will have to respond to the feedback in this thread by himself so that I can update the entry.

Keep in mind that the reviews represent solely the opinions of the reviewers, and not some form of UnrealSP.Org Hivemind opinion. USP is merely a platform for the community to express itself. (and the changes I have planned for the site will emphasize this)

Actually the purpose of this site is to inform people of the goings on with regards to Unreal Singleplayer mappacks, and the first thing people turn to to check out whether a pack or map is worth playing is going to be review scores. I think it's perfectly fine to ask a reviewer to revise their scores if they are clearly out of balance with all the other offerings on display.

I see that, notwithstanding the fact that a modified version was used and this fact is well known now, the review of the Alin'gar map remains as it was, right at the top of the list.

Frieza pointed out, and he is probably right, and I quote "the first thing people turn to to check out whether a pack or map is worth playing is going to be review scores." The only good thing I can say is that the Illhaven 2012 thread has received 5 or 6 thousand hits on this site alone inside 2 months. It is fortunate then that it was published before any review on this site was released, bearing in mind Frieza's quote. In fact I shudder to think of any forthcoming reviews.

With the exception of Delacroix who seems to recognize that a good map is one that is greater then the sum of its parts, what qualifications do these elitist "holier than thou" map reviewers have to judge maps made by those early mappers who pioneered the way in this field. That they may have very high review scores on the very same site in which they judge is not persuasive.

The criteria sadly missing from the score chart are ORIGINALITY and CREATIVITY. To me, originality is the very foundation of anything creative. After all, anybody can knock up a copy or redux of someone else's idea. I did mention the "fun factor" once but that was negated simply by suggesting it was subjective. Simply because someone doesn't like a blue hue in the fog of a creepy castle suggests to me that these reviews are subjective already.

I guess you can tell I am tired of getting kicked about in reviews. It would seem to me that if these mappers are so brilliant (you know, scores of 80%+ etc), I fail to understand why they haven't been snapped up by the industry. Perhaps they have. If so, what are they doing writing condescending reviews?

As you can see, I am tired of condescending reviews. In fact I am getting fairly tired of making maps, particularly when in the process of doing so, someone dredges up a modified (for the worse) old map of mine and then deigns to give it 38%. It is discouraging to say the least. And yes, I am proud of my reputation.

Kew wrote:I see that, notwithstanding the fact that a modified version was used and this fact is well known now, the review of the Alin'gar map remains as it was, right at the top of the list.

Frieza pointed out, and he is probably right, and I quote "the first thing people turn to to check out whether a pack or map is worth playing is going to be review scores." The only good thing I can say is that the Illhaven 2012 thread has received 5 or 6 thousand hits on this site alone inside 2 months. It is fortunate then that it was published before any review on this site was released, bearing in mind Frieza's quote. In fact I shudder to think of any forthcoming reviews.

With the exception of Delacroix who seems to recognize that a good map is one that is greater then the sum of its parts, what qualifications do these elitist "holier than thou" map reviewers have to judge maps made by those early mappers who pioneered the way in this field. That they may have very high review scores on the very same site in which they judge is not persuasive.

The criteria sadly missing from the score chart are ORIGINALITY and CREATIVITY. To me, originality is the very foundation of anything creative. After all, anybody can knock up a copy or redux of someone else's idea. I did mention the "fun factor" once but that was negated simply by suggesting it was subjective. Simply because someone doesn't like a blue hue in the fog of a creepy castle suggests to me that these reviews are subjective already.

I guess you can tell I am tired of getting kicked about in reviews. It would seem to me that if these mappers are so brilliant (you know, scores of 80%+ etc), I fail to understand why they haven't been snapped up by the industry. Perhaps they have. If so, what are they doing writing condescending reviews?

As you can see, I am tired of condescending reviews. In fact I am getting fairly tired of making maps, particularly when in the process of doing so, someone dredges up a modified (for the worse) old map of mine and then deigns to give it 38%. It is discouraging to say the least. And yes, I am proud of my reputation.

Yours truly,

Kew

Are you serious?

Let's start with the "condescending" review. How exactly was "holier than thou" Teridax supposed to know that a map with a 2 at the end of its name is the "better" version? If you made those changes, that's your fault; Teridax even stated that he must have reviewed the wrong version. Second of all, a condescending review would be giving the map more praise than it deserves. If you think getting an honest opinion is being "kicked about," then you need to grow thicker skin and learn to take criticism. As for the "elitist" review that "dredges up" your map, if you actually read sana's post you would see that the review was finished long before then. I can't imagine that Teridax would have reviewed the map if he knew you were going to react this way, nor do I think anyone will want to review Illhaven 2012 if you're going to behave this way. Also, you wondering why people who haven't been hired by the games industry can judge a map is like a chef wondering why customers can say his food tastes bad. It's terrible logic at best and insulting to both Mr. Prophet, Teridax, and anyone else who has ever had an opinion about your work.

Just because your maps were released early in Unreal's life doesn't mean they should be put on some pedestal. Doing so would lower the score of better maps.Are you saying that Rajal Castle should have a much higher score just because it paved the way for other custom maps? Should Doom be regarded as the best FPS of all time just because it paved the way for so many other games? You didn't make either of those, so I'm assuming you don't think so.

That's funny. This is the third time you've bashed reviews of your maps just because they aren't glowing. Are you going to remove this post of yours, too?Anyway, don't worry about your reputation. At this point, you're not doing yourself any favors. Go ahead and hang the threat of leaving without releasing your maps (again) over the community, you're just making yourself look worse. Just leave and get it over with if you don't want anyone to discuss your maps.

What I find shocking is that you're an adult who is in the gaming industry. How can that be possible if you don't even know what actual feedback is?

Last edited by AlCapowned on 27 Jun 2012, 06:01, edited 5 times in total.

I say this mild-mannerly, friends, but here's the thing: what I really want is for us all just to chill and be cool, okay. Relax, accept that others will have opinions, and they may offend you or go against something you believe, but realize that you're both on even ground; you too have an opinion with which you can defend yourself with and which will soften the blow.

Or don't do any of that. Do what you want.

Getting worked up on words thrown about on the internet, and letting personal reviews piss you off so much...it's pretty funny how serious the tones are getting on here about trivial things.

Kew wrote:I see that, notwithstanding the fact that a modified version was used and this fact is well known now, the review of the Alin'gar map remains as it was, right at the top of the list.

Frieza pointed out, and he is probably right, and I quote "the first thing people turn to to check out whether a pack or map is worth playing is going to be review scores." The only good thing I can say is that the Illhaven 2012 thread has received 5 or 6 thousand hits on this site alone inside 2 months. It is fortunate then that it was published before any review on this site was released, bearing in mind Frieza's quote. In fact I shudder to think of any forthcoming reviews.

The update was posted yesterday. I'm sure given enough time a review of the more current version will be done, granted the reviewer plays through this other version with the restored story logs. I agree the review could be removed for the time being to avoid confusion.

As for your, erm, concerns...

Kew wrote:With the exception of Delacroix who seems to recognize that a good map is one that is greater then the sum of its parts, what qualifications do these elitist "holier than thou" map reviewers have to judge maps made by those early mappers who pioneered the way in this field. That they may have very high review scores on the very same site in which they judge is not persuasive.

The criteria sadly missing from the score chart are ORIGINALITY and CREATIVITY. To me, originality is the very foundation of anything creative. After all, anybody can knock up a copy or redux of someone else's idea. I did mention the "fun factor" once but that was negated simply by suggesting it was subjective. Simply because someone doesn't like a blue hue in the fog of a creepy castle suggests to me that these reviews are subjective already.

I guess you can tell I am tired of getting kicked about in reviews. It would seem to me that if these mappers are so brilliant (you know, scores of 80%+ etc), I fail to understand why they haven't been snapped up by the industry. Perhaps they have. If so, what are they doing writing condescending reviews?

As you can see, I am tired of condescending reviews. In fact I am getting fairly tired of making maps, particularly when in the process of doing so, someone dredges up a modified (for the worse) old map of mine and then deigns to give it 38%. It is discouraging to say the least. And yes, I am proud of my reputation.

Yours truly,

Kew

Yeah....I don't really know where to begin with this. It's hard to know quite how to respond respectively when you are (collectively) accused of elitism from someone who, obviously, displays a very high opinion of their own work. Teridex and Delecroix are new reviewers for the site, which has otherwise maintained a small hand of maybe five of less people who have written them in the past. Clearly a review of the latest version of any map or mappack is the intention of the site. Mistakes happen, and I'm sure Teridex would have reviewed the most current version of your levels if he knew they were the most current. I've made version mistakes on some reviews I've done as well and they always gotten edited in due time.

Scores, in theory, are for the player. For quick reference. Because it's easier than being expected to read. If I ran the site you can best believe a review would end with either a smiley face or a sad face, with a slightly interested face in between and that's it. It simply isn't worth debating schema ethics with the kind of arrogance displayed by people like you, Kew, who feel owed something more than praise and our relentless obligation to support levels made over a decade ago. You and people like you want something more. Kew, I have a horrible revelation for you. The site doesn't exist to make you feel special, unless having a dedicated community around supporting your work for years is enough to make you feel special (it should be). You talk of condescending comments in a review; where? The only one talking down to anyone here is you. Being upset that an obsolete version of your work got reviewed over a refined version is perfectly valid and it is our job to make it right. But the rest of what you posted...well, let's just say that if it is your reputation you are worried about, posts like that do nothing but tarnish it.

I've maintained stridently over the years against scoring systems, and mostly it because of crap like this. It always comes out of this unspoken competition between mappers; people wanting their stuff to get a gold score, as if anyone is getting paid for this. Nobody sure as hell isn't sending UnrealSP checks to keep talking about this gametype. The bottom line is that levels with fun moments have flaws that players need to know about. The reviews are not about ego stroking, and one thing I can say positively about this site is that it wasn't founded on this intention. We tell players how the levels are because we are playing them too. The fact that some of us also map sometimes is largely irrelevant (would you expect reviews to be made only by other mappers?). That's what sites like Nali City succumbed to and it sucks when it happens. We are players that have simply been hanging around playing this game for quite awhile, letting other players know just how these levels play, what's in them, and why they might want to try them. To date we are probably the only site left that bothers to include such comprehensive reviews. Otherwise we would just be a HUB for download links.

Originality and Creativity. Kew, there are maps as old as Illhaven, older, that have gotten what you might consider "rave" reviews and high scores because they were good levels, yet no more sophisticated in scope as your own. I point to One Day, and Tower of Shrak, as well as others like Hexephet (by Grayson Edge). When something original and creative takes place inside a mappack they are often the most mentioned aspect of a level. You know what gets mentioned maybe a shade more? Bugs and other gameplay issues that hinder player fun and enjoyment.

Kew, how exactly does a person put a score on originality and creativity? I'm asking you, because you are clearly the professional. Tell me how it ought to be done. Give people time to play and review a proper version of your older level and you can rest assured the refit will be taken into consideration. We ain't perfect and we are willing to admit it. But...if you're already feeling the itch of impending butthurt over what score Illhaven 2012 will receive then it might give you some degree of ease when I say that I for one have no intention of writing one. Perhaps you can request one of the writers on our staff to give it a shot if one reviewer seems more gentler for you, but chances are you aren't going to be happy regardless. People will play it either way.

Sincerely, just another amateur nobody (that plays your maps)

Last edited by Mister_Prophet on 27 Jun 2012, 06:00, edited 3 times in total.

Kew, I'm sorry I reviewed the wrong version of your map. In my defense, though, I wouldn't have thought that alingar2 would have been the right version considering that the one I reviewed was alingar3. Yes, the review should be removed, but I won't make a new one. I wouldn't have reviewed the map at all if I knew it would cause so many problems.

Kew wrote:I see that, notwithstanding the fact that a modified version was used and this fact is well known now, the review of the Alin'gar map remains as it was, right at the top of the list.

Frieza pointed out, and he is probably right, and I quote "the first thing people turn to to check out whether a pack or map is worth playing is going to be review scores." The only good thing I can say is that the Illhaven 2012 thread has received 5 or 6 thousand hits on this site alone inside 2 months. It is fortunate then that it was published before any review on this site was released, bearing in mind Frieza's quote. In fact I shudder to think of any forthcoming reviews.

The update was posted yesterday. I'm sure given enough time a review of the more current version will be done, granted the reviewer plays through this other version with the restored story logs. I agree the review could be removed for the time being to avoid confusion.

As for your, erm, concerns...

Kew wrote:With the exception of Delacroix who seems to recognize that a good map is one that is greater then the sum of its parts, what qualifications do these elitist "holier than thou" map reviewers have to judge maps made by those early mappers who pioneered the way in this field. That they may have very high review scores on the very same site in which they judge is not persuasive.

The criteria sadly missing from the score chart are ORIGINALITY and CREATIVITY. To me, originality is the very foundation of anything creative. After all, anybody can knock up a copy or redux of someone else's idea. I did mention the "fun factor" once but that was negated simply by suggesting it was subjective. Simply because someone doesn't like a blue hue in the fog of a creepy castle suggests to me that these reviews are subjective already.

I guess you can tell I am tired of getting kicked about in reviews. It would seem to me that if these mappers are so brilliant (you know, scores of 80%+ etc), I fail to understand why they haven't been snapped up by the industry. Perhaps they have. If so, what are they doing writing condescending reviews?

As you can see, I am tired of condescending reviews. In fact I am getting fairly tired of making maps, particularly when in the process of doing so, someone dredges up a modified (for the worse) old map of mine and then deigns to give it 38%. It is discouraging to say the least. And yes, I am proud of my reputation.

Yours truly,

Kew

Yeah....I don't really know where to begin with this. It's hard to know quite how to respond respectively when you are (collectively) accused of elitism from someone who, obviously, displays a very high opinion of their own work. Teridex and Delecroix are new reviewers for the site, which has otherwise maintained a small hand of maybe five of less people who have written them in the past. Clearly a review of the latest version of any map or mappack is the intention of the site. Mistakes happen, and I'm sure Teridex would have reviewed the most current version of your levels if he knew they were the most current. I've made version mistakes on some reviews I've done as well and they always gotten edited in due time.

Scores, in theory, are for the player. For quick reference. Because it's easier than being expected to read. If I ran the site you can best believe a review would end with either a smiley face or a sad face, with a slightly interested face in between and that's it. It simply isn't worth debating schema ethics with the kind of arrogance displayed by people like you, Kew, who feel owed something more than praise and our relentless obligation to support levels made over a decade ago. You and people like you want something more. Kew, I have a horrible revelation for you. The site doesn't exist to make you feel special, unless having a dedicated community around supporting your work for years is enough to make you feel special (it should be). You talk of condescending comments in a review; where? The only one talking down to anyone here is you. Being upset that an obsolete version of your work got reviewed over a refined version is perfectly valid and it is our job to make it right. But the rest of what you posted...well, let's just say that if it is your reputation you are worried about, posts like that do nothing but tarnish it.

I've maintained stridently over the years against scoring systems, and mostly it because of crap like this. It always comes out of this unspoken competition between mappers; people wanting their stuff to get a gold score, as if anyone is getting paid for this. Nobody sure as hell isn't sending UnrealSP checks to keep talking about this gametype. The bottom line is that levels with fun moments have flaws that players need to know about. The reviews are not about ego stroking, and one thing I can say positively about this site is that it wasn't founded on this intention. We tell players how the levels are because we are playing them too. The fact that some of us also map sometimes is largely irrelevant (would you expect reviews to be made only by other mappers?). That's what sites like Nali City succumbed to and it sucks when it happens. We are players that have simply been hanging around playing this game for quite awhile, letting other players know just how these levels play, what's in them, and why they might want to try them. To date we are probably the only site left that bothers to include such comprehensive reviews. Otherwise we would just be a HUB for download links.

Originality and Creativity. Kew, there are maps as old as Illhaven, older, that have gotten what you might consider "rave" reviews and high scores because they were good levels, yet no more sophisticated in scope as your own. I point to One Day, and Tower of Shrak, as well as others like Hexephet (by Grayson Edge). When something original and creative takes place inside a mappack they are often the most mentioned aspect of a level. You know what gets mentioned maybe a shade more? Bugs and other gameplay issues that hinder player fun and enjoyment.

Kew, how exactly does a person put a score on originality and creativity? I'm asking you, because you are clearly the professional. Tell me how it ought to be done. Give people time to play and review a proper version of your older level and you can rest assured the refit will be taken into consideration. We ain't perfect and we are willing to admit it. But...if you're already feeling the itch of impending butthurt over what score Illhaven 2012 will receive then it might give you some degree of ease when I say that I for one have no intention of writing one. Perhaps you can request one of the writers on our staff to give it a shot if one reviewer seems more gentler for you, but chances are you aren't going to be happy regardless. People will play it either way.

Sincerely, just another amateur nobody (that plays your maps)

Quotin' this because it is a Real Damn Good Post

Also, I would be fine with replacing the scoring system with a thumbs up, thumbs down, a bird, and giant question mark scoring schema. My goal as a mapper every time would be to get the bird. I may not or ever know what the bird means, but it would be my prime directive while creating levels. I must, must, earn the coveted verdict of "a bird."

I say this mild-mannerly, friends, but here's the thing: what I really want is for us all just to chill and be cool, okay. Relax, accept that others will have opinions, and they may offend you or go against something you believe, but realize that you're both on even ground; you too have an opinion with which you can defend yourself with and which will soften the blow.

Or don't do any of that. Do what you want.

Getting worked up on words thrown about on the internet, and letting personal reviews piss you off so much...it's pretty funny how serious the tones are getting on here about trivial things.

This is another Real Great Nice Post especially because of the Cybernetika song referenced!

With the current promise of more levels being potentially added to Illhaven 2012, I find it unfit for review at all. Despite being labeled as final, it's clearly being developed further and as such remains in fact a work in progress. These don't get reviews until they are 100% complete and the chronicles of the character Kew are obviously not closed yet.

As for Alin'Gar, since both Mr. Prophet and Teridax wish to avoid reviewing it, I'll give it a shot. By the way, alingar3 fooled me as well at first, due to the number and a legit-looking readme inside it. However the minute I saw that no translator messages are in, and I clearly remembered them from alingar2, I just knew that this can't be a legit version. Strange how it's in OldUnreal's downloads and alingar2 is absent from there. Oh well.

I am the Unreal archivist and historian. If you have something from the past of Unreal that I don't have, do tell.